[ipv6-wg] New version (or followup) of RIPE-501 document...

On 7/16/11 8:40 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
> I would say LB MUST conform to "host" spec. Those load balancers that
> provide routing functionality MUST conform to "router" specs.

Well, we can take the spec of host and tweak it - as by definition that 
we use "A host is a network participant that sends and receives packets 
but does not forward them on behalf of others." LB can't be just host :)

Now we just need to see which routing protocols are commonly used in 
load balancers and what requirements to get from Router spec section.

>
>> We could put all *NAT* and L4+ stuff in optional requirements.
>> Probably the goal is to describe IPv6 load balancer, that would
>> work in IPv6 only environment and IPv6 only clients and servers. Am
>> I wrong?
>
> Load balancing between IPv6 clients and IPv6 and IPv4 servers (6-to-6
> and 6-to-4) is a short-term MUST. 4-to-6 is a longer-term SHOULD.

Maybe we can write this requirements as wording, not as RFC pointer...

>
> Mixed v4/v6 servers behind the same outside virtual IPv6 address is a
> SHOULD.
>
> Support for X-forwarded-for (or equivalent) header in HTTP is a MUST
> (otherwise the servers lose any visibility into who the client is).

this is also non-RFC requirement...

Let's see what I can do.

/jan